Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 04:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > What I cannot imagine is a case where an upstream change would result
> > > in only Sun's Java to break rather than a whole bunch of applications
> > > (so they would most likely be noticed before the release), and/or to do
> > > so on Debian only, rather than on every Linux distribution out there;
> > > and it would seem that for any case where the effects are much wider
> > > than just Debian, it can reasonably be argued that the problems are,
> > > not under our control, which would free us from the burden of having to
> > > idemnify Sun.
While some people cannot imagine that a contract will be
enforced as written, judges can.
While some people think that it would seem that an exception
exists where none is written, judges don't.
While some people think that it can reasonably be argued that
a contract doesn't mean what it says, judges don't.
> > > If I'm misguided, I'd be happy to be enlightened. But I don't think I
> > > am.
> > If you are not misguided, then why DLJ license creators put texts like:
> > "the use or distribution of your Operating System, or any part
> > thereof, in any manner"
> > directly into the license?
> I dunno? It doesn't matter, because the text goes on to say
> You shall not be obligated under Section 2(f)(i) if such claim
> would not have occurred but for a modification made to your
> Operating System by someone not under your direction or control,
> and you were in compliance with all other terms of this Agreement.
> If it didn't, you had a point. As it is, you don't.
> > And you are not to be liable for that only if the modifications made
> > to the underlying systemm are not under your control. If a new
> > upstream version of glibc or the kernel breaks Sun java to function
> > properly or as documented then I believe (according to the license)
> > someone should be be held liable for that break. Who's that? Upsteam?
> That's Not Our Problem(TM). We're only to indemnify Sun for the things
> we are directly responsible for. It doesn't mention /anything/ about the
> stuff for which we are not directly responsible.
Debian can argue that it is not responsible for software
not in Debian archives. However, all software in Debian
archives is signed in by a DD, a member of Debian's web
A new upstream bug does not affect Debian until Debian is
changed by the DD's incorporation of the upstream version
containing the upstream bug. When that change is signed in
to Debian, that is a change to Debian made by and authorised
by a DD. At that point, Debian becomes responsible for
incorporating the upstream bug into Debian, and Debian
becomes responsible for indemnifying Sun.